无线本地环路应用的DECT, PACS和小灵通标准的比较评估

O. Momtahan, H. Hashemi
{"title":"无线本地环路应用的DECT, PACS和小灵通标准的比较评估","authors":"O. Momtahan, H. Hashemi","doi":"10.1109/35.920871","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In a comparative analysis the performance and capacity of DECT, PACS, and PHS for WLL applications have been investigated. This article reports the results of both qualitative and quantitative analysis. The qualitative evaluation consists of a detailed comparison of the parameters of each standard and their relevance in WLL applications. In the quantitative analysis detailed simulations have been performed covering diversified sets of conditions. The results of both types of analysis are presented. A major conclusion is that all three standards provide satisfactory performance for WLL applications. For low-traffic environments PACS, which can employ larger cells, performs better than the other two standards. In suburban areas where, in addition to coverage, capacity is an issue, DECT has better performance. For high-traffic-density urban areas with great capacity requirements all three standards have good performance.","PeriodicalId":332944,"journal":{"name":"IEEE Personal Communications","volume":"13 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2001-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A comparative evaluation of DECT, PACS, and PHS standards for wireless local loop applications\",\"authors\":\"O. Momtahan, H. Hashemi\",\"doi\":\"10.1109/35.920871\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In a comparative analysis the performance and capacity of DECT, PACS, and PHS for WLL applications have been investigated. This article reports the results of both qualitative and quantitative analysis. The qualitative evaluation consists of a detailed comparison of the parameters of each standard and their relevance in WLL applications. In the quantitative analysis detailed simulations have been performed covering diversified sets of conditions. The results of both types of analysis are presented. A major conclusion is that all three standards provide satisfactory performance for WLL applications. For low-traffic environments PACS, which can employ larger cells, performs better than the other two standards. In suburban areas where, in addition to coverage, capacity is an issue, DECT has better performance. For high-traffic-density urban areas with great capacity requirements all three standards have good performance.\",\"PeriodicalId\":332944,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"IEEE Personal Communications\",\"volume\":\"13 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2001-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"5\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"IEEE Personal Communications\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1109/35.920871\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"IEEE Personal Communications","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/35.920871","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

摘要

对比分析了DECT、PACS和PHS在井眼应用中的性能和容量。本文报告了定性和定量分析的结果。定性评估包括详细比较每个标准的参数及其在井眼观测应用中的相关性。在定量分析中,详细的模拟涵盖了多种条件。给出了两种分析的结果。一个主要的结论是,这三个标准都提供了令人满意的性能井应用程序。对于低流量环境,PACS可以使用更大的小区,性能优于其他两种标准。在郊区,除了覆盖范围之外,容量也是一个问题,DECT有更好的表现。对于交通密度大、容量要求高的城区,三个标准均有较好的表现。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A comparative evaluation of DECT, PACS, and PHS standards for wireless local loop applications
In a comparative analysis the performance and capacity of DECT, PACS, and PHS for WLL applications have been investigated. This article reports the results of both qualitative and quantitative analysis. The qualitative evaluation consists of a detailed comparison of the parameters of each standard and their relevance in WLL applications. In the quantitative analysis detailed simulations have been performed covering diversified sets of conditions. The results of both types of analysis are presented. A major conclusion is that all three standards provide satisfactory performance for WLL applications. For low-traffic environments PACS, which can employ larger cells, performs better than the other two standards. In suburban areas where, in addition to coverage, capacity is an issue, DECT has better performance. For high-traffic-density urban areas with great capacity requirements all three standards have good performance.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信